Economic making of an old, white male !

[FROM BILL LIFKA - Lightly edited and published based on Bill's prior blanket approval. Bill is about nine years my senior. I too was trained to appreciate real productive labor, helping my dad with woodworking, plumbing and electrical work. I credit my several summers selling ice cream on the beach in Brooklyn, carrying dry ice coolers on my shoulders and shouting, "Hey! Ice Cream Here! Good Humor Ice Cream and Orange Drink!" with helping me develop a strong speaking voice. My final two summers of college were spent gaining incredibly valuable knowledge working as a technical writer.  Ira Glickstein]

TO MY ADULT GRANDCHILDREN

This is another tale of how I became an old, white male and, therefore, became hated by political leftists. In this story, I recall how business experiences, starting at age 9, shaped my adult economic views. It’s likely that other old, white men had similar experiences.  !

Political making of an old, white male !

[FROM BILL LIFKA - Lightly edited and published based on Bill's prior blanket approval. Bill is about nine years my senior. I too was born into a family that voted solid Democrat. FDR's photo hung with honor in my grandparent's kitchen. My Dad (but not my Mom) voted for Eisenhower, probably the first in my childhood family to make the switch. Ira Glickstein]

To my (adult) grandchildren:                                                        

Political making of an old, white male ! I’ll preface my forthcoming letters on the 2020 election with a few tales of how I became an old, white male, an identity hated by Democrats. Ironically, once I was young and a Democrat.

On Being Stubborn - House Freedom Caucus

[From Bill Lifka - Graphic by Ira]

MAX THE ARMY MULE

I knew a sergeant at The Artillery School who’d served from before WWII when horse drawn artillery still existed. He’d served in a mountain battery that used mules to carry the small howitzers in two pieces. The tube was placed on the back of one mule and the carriage with wheels on another mule. The ammunition and other battery equipment were also carried by mules. Mules were chosen over horses because they were stronger, had staying power and were sure-footed on mountainous terrain.

On the negative side, some mules are downright stubborn and unwilling to do their jobs if doing so doesn’t suit their fancy at the moment. In Sgt. Clancy’s battery, one of the mules, Max, was noted for being most stubborn of all. His habit was to rear up on his hind legs when the job or situation wasn’t to his liking. 

On or around Fort Sill there are no mountains but there is rolling terrain. One fairly big hill, called Signal Mountain, rises 1200 feet or so over its base at an increasingly higher slope near its top. A punishment hike or two up the hill was a regular Saturday event for me when I attended OCS. (Actually performed at a “paratroop shuffle”.) 

For the mountain artillery, Signal Mountain was the only way to keep its mules in shape. On one fateful day, Sgt. Clancy’s battery was on its way up the mountain. Max was having one of his more ornery days and had been kicking and rearing from the moment he’d been led from the corral. His handlers couldn’t let him get away with bad behavior on this occasion or he’d be worse the next time.

Eventually, Max settled down sufficiently so a carriage could be loaded on and he fell in the line of mules heading out on the trail. As I know from personal experience, the trail up Signal Mountain is narrow and falls off sharply to one side. There’s not much room for error, which mules seem to know instinctively. With the exception of Max, all the mules settled into the climb at a steady pace, placing their hoofs with practiced care. 

Max knew better but he continued to show his dissatisfaction by skittering around and tossing his head. Finally he reared up on his hind quarters, a tremendous feat considering the load he was carrying. Unfortunately, he rose past the point where he exceeded the center of gravity (his and his load), fell backward and rolled down the mountain upside down atop the carriage wheels accompanied by the cheers of his handlers. Max was stubborn to his end.

PERSEVERING VS BEING STUBBORN

There’s a difference between persevering and being stubborn. When one keeps trying to attain a goal using other than previously failed actions, one’s persistence is considered to be strength. When one keeps trying the same failing action, it’s called stubbornness and stupidity. 

That brings me to my subject which is current historic levels of stubbornness and stupidity in Congress, as opposed to the usual stubbornness and stupidity that’s a hallmark of those hallowed chambers.

It might have been better if the Republican-led House had practiced with a few easier initiatives before introducing a bill that began changing Obamacare. I use the word “began” because the plan of the Speaker and his associates was to effect a change in three stages. It was quite certain Democrats in the Senate would vote 100% against any Republican sponsored health bill out of the House because Democrats in Congress and those not yet removed from Executive Branch departments have been waging a fierce war against all Republican initiatives since the election. 

It makes no difference that the country needs adult leadership right now desperately; the main goal for Democratic officeholders is to let their constituents know they are bent on revenge for having lost the White House and the sweetest revenges for most Democrats are preventing any changes to Obamacare and preventing the appointment of Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court. Last week the Democrats succeeded in the first of these and next week they hope to succeed in the second. 

Actually, it wasn’t Democrats who defeated Obamacare replacement. It was 25+/- Republican congressmen who call themselves the “Freedom Caucus.” They consider themselves to be “true” Conservatives and, therefore, are “real” Republicans who take Party principles seriously. 

As far as I can figure out, I share all the major beliefs of these guys but I want you to know I think they were stubborn and stupid on this occasion as they were back when the previous Speaker gave up and retired rather than fight them as well as a President (Obama) out to destroy the Republican Party. 

In my view, Ryan had a correct strategic plan that addressed the Senate process and the bare majority held by Republicans in that house. It was Freedom Caucus Republicans who would not follow the leadership again because they didn’t think their plan went far enough.  

I had the opportunity to talk to my Congressman just after the fiasco. I told him he was wrong and needed to change his ways. He has a great name, an impressive appearance and a pat answer, as I had expected. He is a stereotypical politician: 18 years in the Florida House, 10 years in the Florida Senate, 6 years (so far) in the U.S. House. In each of these offices he ran from two different districts because of redistricting; he likes the job. I rated his reason for blocking Ryan’s bill as unadulterated BS, although he argued well. He denied he’s a member of the “Freedom Caucus”. (That caucus ran him as a candidate for speaker against Boehner.) He argued the Ryan bill didn’t go far enough and denied Freedom Caucus changes would prevent Senate passage. 

He was wrong or betting I wouldn’t know. He said maybe it was good Obamacare would continue since it would fail and that would force Americans to embrace a truly great replacement. When I mentioned “party loyalty”, he denied that was important. He was wrong again. I know some really smart Conservatives who think like my (new) Congressman. I just don’t get why they like what I think is all bad. 

Any improvement in Obamacare would be better but still bad because any federal government involvement in health care will cause it to be ineffective. To let Obamacare fail (as it will) is just plain irresponsible and Republicans will get the blame. 

Democrats in the Senate are as bad as the wrong-headed Republicans in the House. They have acted like idiots in their questioning Neil Gorsuch, who has been rated as an ideal candidate for the Supreme Court by legal organizations ranging from Liberal to Conservative. His extensive service as a federal judge provides unwavering testimony to his fairness in upholding the law and not making the law, as Liberals expect of them. Senate Democratic leaders rant and rave in their frenzied attempt to defeat him. (Or anyone Trump might name.) The basis of every argument against Gorsuch is that Democrats expect judges to make decisions on ideological grounds not on the law as written. They are too stupid to realize that would bite them in the ass in due time.

The problem of the Freedom Caucus is the same as that of the Democratic Caucus in the Senate. Although they are directly opposed on all political issues they share a monumental stubbornness and lack even the barest smidgen of modesty in their belief they are 100% right and any opposition is 100% wrong. I wonder if there’s a steep hill near Washington DC on which we could gather these folks together and tie wheels on their backs. 

Bill Lifka

Incredible, Resourceful, Affluent President-Elect Donald Trump

Are you as unhappy with the results of yesterday's Presidential election as I am? Both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump have favorability ratings below 50%, so, no matter who won, most Americans would have been unhappy. I opposed Trump in the Republican primaries and did not support either candidate in the general election.

Thank goodness this awful election is finally over and the result is decisive in the Electoral College. I find it gratifying that, starting today in the wee hours of the day after the election, both sides have been saying cordial things to each other, in our tradition of peaceful transition of power. I remained awake till 1 AM, when it appeared all but certain Trump would prevail (but not by how much), then awoke at 3 AM in time to watch the victory speeches of VP-elect Mike Pence and Trump.

I was relieved to hear Trump thank Clinton for her gracious phone call conceding the election, and for the fact his victory celebration was definitely in the no-gloat zone. Prior to noon, Democrat VP-candidate Tim Kaine and Clinton addressed their followers in emotionally heartfelt, yet positive, speeches. President Obama followed a bit after noon, with cordial congratulations and an invitation for Trump to visit the White House the following day, which he has accepted.

SO, WHO TO BLAME ?

Though protests were to be expected, I was sorry to see this evening's street demonstrations against the election results in several cities. On the positive side, the marchers have not been excessively violent, at least so far. Let us hope reason continues to prevail.

Political partisans on both sides will soon begin the blame game. Why did Clinton lose and who is the designated bogeyman?

1. Blame FBI Director James Comey? Was he wrong to put his fat FBI thumb on the scales during the early voting period less than two weeks before election day? Well, due to an unrelated FBI investigation, he was informed that hundreds of thousands of emails, some related to Clinton's stint as Secretary of State, had been found. Soon after he informed Congressional leaders of the find, a flood of leaks revealed the emails were on a computer shared by top Clinton aide Huma Abedin and her now-estranged husband Anthony Wiener (what an appropriate name :^). IMHO, had Comey not provided official notice to Congress when he did, others at the FBI would have leaked the information, having at least as much negative effect on Clinton's campaign.

2. Blame Huma Abedin? As a State Department employee, Abedin had a legal duty to turn over all computers and phones with work-related data on them. She failed to turn in the computer shared with Wiener. Had she done so in a timely manner, the FBI would have included those emails in their initial analysis completed in July. The FBI would have found (as they did shortly before election day) that these emails did not change Comey's July recommendation that Clinton and her staff had been "extremely careless" in their handling of information that was classified at the time, but that their actions did not rise to a criminal level.  IMHO, had Abedin turned that computer over earlier in the year, it would not have come up so close to the election, and Clinton might have won.

3. Blame Anthony Wiener? Had Wiener not repeatedly posted sexually-loaded photos of himself on social media, culminating in a lewd message to a teenager, the FBI would not have been investigating him, and his shared computer would never have come to light. IMHO, has Wiener kept his sexual absurdities in his pants, Clinton might have won.

4. Blame Bill Clinton and Attorney-General Loretta Lynch? Normally, prosecutors in the Justice Department would have decided whether or not the data from the FBI investigation of Clinton's email server justified criminal charges. However, shortly before that decision was to be made, former-President Bill Clinton had what was apparently supposed to be a secret meeting with the Attorney-General on the Phoenix airport tarmac. When an enterprising reporter revealed that Bill had spoken to the head of the Justice Department, who had the final authority to charge his wife Hillary with a crime, they claimed all they talked about was their grandchildren, golf, and travel. Of course, no one believed that, so Lynch was forced to turn the final decision over to Comey, and he was required to announce it to the public and testify to Congress. IMHO, had Bill Clinton not met with Lynch, Comey's role would have been behind the scenes and Lynch would have made the decision not to prosecute, and Clinton might have won.

5. Blame Hillary Clinton? Of course not! It would be blatantly sexist to blame the first woman who had a chance to be elected President of the US. She admits it was a mistake to use a private email server for State Department business, why not leave it at that? [Sarcasm off] IMHO, Clinton endangered National Security by using a system that the FBI concluded was "less secure than Gmail" to transmit and receive over 100 emails with information that was classified at the time, some at the highest Top Secret level. It would have been better for Lynch to have a US Attorney convene a Grand Jury instead of short-circuiting the process and having Comey make the decision himself.

BLAME DONALD TRUMP

Yes, of course! He is an "evil genius" who has played the American public and the mostly leftist media by pretending to be an uncouth, lewd, bumbling, blowhard, political novice, while taking over the Republican Party apparatus and getting elected to the most powerful office on Earth. He also fooled me.

Here are some of the bad things I've written about him on this Blog:

from http://tvpclub.blogspot.com/2016/10/why-i-can-no-longer-mark-my-ballot-for.html

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Compared to Hillary Clinton] less is known about Donald's views prior to becoming a politician, it appears he has been far more centrist on social policy and less hawkish than the Tea Party, Religious Right, and Conservative Establishment far-right wings of  the Republican Party. He registered for the Reform Party from 1999-2001, Democrat from 2001-2009, and Independent from 2011-2012. (He registered as a Republican from 1987-1999, 2009-2011, and 2012-present.)  Last year I wrote the following, quoting from my Blog (2015/04/10):

Donald Trump, [is] a Crony Capitalist Democrat pretending to be a Republican. As recently as 2004, he told CNN's Wolf Blitizer "In many cases, I probably identify more as Democrat" and in 2007, also with Blitzer, he praised Hillary Clinton's ability to negotiate with Iran. Trump gave more to Democrats than Republicans between 1989 and 2009 according to NPR. ... Until recently, his views on military action in the mid-east, abortion, drug legalization, and health care have been more in line with leftist Democrats than with independents and Republicans.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Donald has said some stupid things that got him into unnecessary battles. He refused to back off, which only increased the damage to his campaign

• Early in his Presidential Primary campaign, Donald said that Senator John McCain is "not a war hero. He's a war hero because he was captured." That dumb remark did not hurt McCain, because everyone knows he was a hero the moment he put on a US Naval Aviator uniform and flew dangerous missions over enemy territory. The fact he was shot down and served honorably as a POW is only icing on the cake of his heroic status.


• Trump also went way overboard criticizing undocumented Mexican immigrants. He even questioned the fairness of a judge of Mexican ancestry who was born in the US.


• Donald made an idiotic pledge to ban all Muslim immigration. Then he criticized Muslim Gold Star parents, a lawyer and his wife, who appeared at the Democratic convention to point out that a flat religious ban would be unconstitutional. Trump suggested the wife remained silent because Muslims do not value women.


• Trump, not a professional politician, has been making extreme, sexist, and otherwise intolerable "politically incorrect" comments all his life. Instead of admitting that fact, he continues to fight decades-old battles, such as the one about a Miss Universe who gained some weight after she won the competition.


• The most recent Access Hollywood video and tape is a particularly lewd example of Donald's taste for beautiful women. His comments are absolutely unforgivable.


• Summary: Donald Trump is an amazingly athletic speaker. He can verbally kick himself in the head and step on his own dong without missing a beat. 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[On October 12, 2016 I wrote] Up till about 24 hours ago, I thought I would "hold my nose" and vote against Hillary Clinton by darkening the oval next to Donald Trump's name.

What changed my intention?

• Well, it was Trump's appearance on the O'Reilly Factor,on October 11th. I record and watch Bill O'Reilly almost every evening. Trump trashed Senator John McCain and House Majority Leader Paul Ryan and said he would go it alone! That was what put me over the top!


• I've seen both McCain and Ryan in person when they came to The Villages (in Central Florida) for their 2008 and 2012 campaigns. In 2008, I stood for almost an hour, twenty feet from McCain as he (and Democratic Senator Joe Lieberman) spoke and answered questions. In 2012 I watched Ryan's VP campaign appearance at an outdoor rally, where he introduced his mother, who happened to be a Florida resident. They are politicians, but also honorable men (as is Mitt Romney, whose hand I shook when he came here during the Republican primary).


• So, for the first time in my life, in 2016 at the age of 77, I will not vote for the Republican nominee for President of the US. Of course, I will vote for down-ballot Republicans and hope we can retain control of the Congress. Perhaps I will write-in the name of Paul Ryan or some other Republican I admire. It is a long-shot, but, perhaps Donald Trump will withdraw his name and allow the Republican National Committee to substitute someone else, Who knows?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

from http://tvpclub.blogspot.com/2015/10/do-republicans-hate-immigrants-women.html

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In case you are wondering who I am and where I'm coming from:

I'm an old Goldwater Republican and a techie engineer. In 1964 when my wife and I were married, there was a sign with the chemical formula for "Gold Water" (AuH₂O) in the rear window of my car! Despite political differences, I'm still married to my super-smart and highly accomplished first wife. We have three highly-intelligent daughters (also still married to their very smart first husbands) and five wonderful grandchildren. We were both born in Brooklyn, lived most our working lives in Tioga County in upstate New York, and now reside in The Villages, FL, "America's Happiest and Healthiest Home Town".

I earned a Bachelors in Electrical Engineering, and a Masters and PhD in System Science and am proud of my long, successful career as a System Engineer at IBM and Lockheed-Martin, with my name on five US Patents. As an adjunct professor, I taught undergrad and graduate courses in System Engineering at Binghamton University and the University of Maryland University College.

As a Guest Contributor to the world's most popular Climate website, my postings on the reality of the "Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect" and how human activities that have boosted CO2 levels and reduced the Earth's albedo are therefore responsible for some fraction of recent warming, have attracted hundreds of thousands of page views and thousands of comments. Although I favor moderate worldwide action to save energy, encourage alternatives to the unprecedented burning of fossil-fuels (including a flat carbon-tax -- but not cap and trade), I am convinced that politically-motivated hysteria over possible human-caused catastrophic climate change is overblown. My wife and I have tried to do our part by recycling, super-insulating our house, and, for the past 11 years, we have shared an energy-efficient Prius hybrid.

MY BLOGS AND OTHER RESOURCES

• The Virtual Philosophy Club - Courteous Discussion of Serious Topics


• Visual Ira - Visualize Science and Technology With Ira


• "2052 - The Hawking Plan" (Free online Novel) Amore, amorality and Stephanie Goldenrod's mission to save civilization for an infinite future.


• Life, Liberty, and Technology - My predictions for the next several decades (companion site to my novel)


• Curb Your Enthusiasm - Fantasy Episode


• MyYouTube Videos


• My "What is Time?" Video

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ira Glickstein

Why I Can No Longer Mark my Ballot for Trump

"Love trumps hate" and "Love Trump's hats" differ in only a few letters. Analogously, it might be said that there are only relatively minor differences between the two leading candidates. Not enough to allow their more extreme proponents to tear the US Apart.

Both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump have favorability ratings below 50%. Therefore, most Americans will be voting against, rather than for our next President.

When I created the above animated image, I thought I was going to vote against Clinton by "holding my nose" and darkening the oval next to Trump's name on my Presidential ballot.

I can no longer mark my ballot for Trump or anyone else currently running for President.

MY THOUGHT PROCESS

Both Clinton and Trump are intelligent, well-educated, live in New York, and are patriots who truly believe their election would be best for our country:

• Donald was born in New York. Bachelor of Science from Wharton School of Finance and Commerce (University of Pennsylvania).
• Hillary was born in Illinois. Bachelor of Arts from Wellesley College and J.D. from Yale Law School. She lived in Arkansas from 1974-1992, in Washington, DC from 1993-2000, moved to New York in 1999, and was elected Senator from New York in 2000.

Both are rich, having benefited from the give and take of US politics

• Donald, mostly on the give, contributed to politicians of both parties in return for government permits, zoning, tax policies, and other assistance to the real estate projects, products, and services his corporations provide to consumers.
• Hillary, mostly on the take, accepted support for her Senatorial and Presidential campaigns, as well as high-priced speeches by her and husband Bill at private corporate meetings, and contributions to the Clinton Foundation. 
• Both Hillary and Donald "prove" the cynical point that, here in the USA, 

• We enjoy the very best government money can buy. ©

Both have misrepresented themselves to the extreme wings of their parties to win their Presidential primaries, and to activate their "base" to come out and vote in the general election:

• By most accounts, Hillary is far more centrist on social policy and more hawkish on military and foreign policies than President Obama or the Bernie Sanders Socialist, Occupy Wall Street, Black Lives Matter far-left wings of the Democratic Party. Quoting from How Hillary Clinton Became a Hawk - The New York Times (2016/04/24/):

[Secretary Clinton] had backed Gen. Stanley McChrystal’s recommendation to send 40,000 more troops to Afghanistan, before endorsing a fallback proposal of 30,000. She supported the Pentagon’s plan to leave behind a residual force of 10,000 to 20,000 American troops in Iraq (Obama balked at this, largely because of his inability to win legal protections from the Iraqis, a failure that was to haunt him when the Islamic State overran much of the country). And she pressed for the United States to funnel arms to the rebels in Syria’s civil war (an idea Obama initially rebuffed before later, halfheartedly, coming around to it).

• Although less is known about Donald's views prior to becoming a politician, it appears he has been far more centrist on social policy and less hawkish than the Tea Party, Religious Right, and Conservative Establishment far-right wings of  the Republican Party. He registered for the Reform Party from 1999-2001, Democrat from 2001-2009, and Independent from 2011-2012. (He registered as a Republican from 1987-1999, 2009-2011, and 2012-present.)  Last year I wrote the following, quoting from my Blog (2015/04/10):

Donald Trump, [is] a Crony Capitalist Democrat pretending to be a Republican. As recently as 2004, he told CNN's Wolf Blitizer "In many cases, I probably identify more as Democrat" and in 2007, also with Blitzer, he praised Hillary Clinton's ability to negotiate with Iran. Trump gave more to Democrats than Republicans between 1989 and 2009 according to NPR. ... Until recently, his views on military action in the mid-east, abortion, drug legalization, and health care have been more in line with leftist Democrats than with independents and Republicans.

IS "HE SAID, BUT SHE DID" A VALID EXCUSE?

Donald has said some stupid things that got him into unnecessary battles. He refused to back off, which only increased the damage to his campaign

• Early in his Presidential Primary campaign, Donald said that Senator John McCain is "not a war hero. He's a war hero because he was captured." That dumb remark did not hurt McCain, because everyone knows he was a hero the moment he put on a US Naval Aviator uniform and flew dangerous missions over enemy territory. The fact he was shot down and served honorably as a POW is only icing on the cake of his heroic status.
• Trump also went way overboard criticizing undocumented Mexican immigrants. He even questioned the fairness of a judge of Mexican ancestry who was born in the US.
• Donald made an idiotic pledge to ban all Muslim immigration. Then he criticized Muslim Gold Star parents, a lawyer and his wife, who appeared at the Democratic convention to point out that a flat religious ban would be unconstitutional. Trump suggested the wife remained silent because Muslims do not value women.
• Trump, not a professional politician, has been making extreme, sexist, and otherwise intolerable "politically incorrect" comments all his life. Instead of admitting that fact, he continues to fight decades-old battles, such as the one about a Miss Universe who gained some weight after she won the competition.
• The most recent Access Hollywood video and tape is a particularly lewd example of Donald's taste for beautiful women. His comments are absolutely unforgivable.
• Summary: Donald Trump is an amazingly athletic speaker. He can verbally kick himself in the head and step on his own dong without missing a beat.

Hillary has done some stupid things, such as being "extremely careless" in handling US National Security Secrets, and lying to the public about it. She lied even when unnecessary (as when she had pneumonia), and thus damaged her campaign.

• The use of a private email server for both private and State Department emails while Hillary was Secretary of State, is not, per se, a legal violation. The problem that earned her a "PANTS ON FIRE" rating from Politifact was lying about the matter.
• She and her close staff placed highly classified information on that private server and on insecure cell phones and iPads, and transmitted US National Security Secret and Top Secret information over unsecured networks that were (all but) certainly hacked by hostile governments and terrorist organizations.
• FBI Director James Comey concluded that her private server and email system was less secure than Gmail:

• And I’m not looking to pick on Gmail. Their security is actually pretty good, the weakness is individual users. But, yes, Gmail has full-time security staff and thinks about patching, and logging, and protecting their systems in a way that was not the case [with Clinton's private server]. 

• More direct quotes from FBI Director Comey [emphasis mine]:

• From the group of 30,000 emails returned to the State Department in 2014, 110 emails in 52 email chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was top secret at the time they were sent; 36 of those chains contained secret information at the time; and eight contained confidential information at the time.

• Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of the classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.

• There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton's position or in the position of those with whom she was corresponding about the matters should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation.

• Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton's personal email account.

• During my employment as a System Engineer working on Department of Defense projects, I had access to classified information, mostly at the Confidential and Secret level, but including a bit of Top Secret material. Each project has Security Guidelines, so we all knew what types of material was classified and at what level. Each paragraph, table, figure and drawing was marked with a (U) for Unclassified, (C) for Confidential, (S) for Secret and (TS) for Top Secret, often with additional markings for NO FORN (no foreign access) and so on. If I had seen information that was not properly marked, I would have considered that a critical failure of security and would have reported it to be sure it was corrected. That she and her personal staff failed to so so rules her out as a person I would vote into the highest office in the land.
• As a government employee, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had a legal duty to turn over all work-related email to the State Department. As we all know, her staff destroyed around 33,000 emails on the basis that they were not work-related. (She claimed they were about such things as her daughter's wedding, family vacations, etc. That seems like quite a lot!). Well, using forensic technology and emails provided by government recipients, the FBI found that thousands of her work-related emails had been deleted. Of course, we don't know how many work-related emails were not recovered by these forensic techniques, and what juicy materials they might have contained. We do know they were deleted after a subpoena had been issued for them.
• Did even the most rabid Nixon supporter really believe that his secretary had "accidentally" erased 18 minutes of taped Oval Office conversations, or that those 18 minutes contained only innocent Nixon family matters or sports discussions? Of course not! Yet, some of you, reading this blog item, believe that Hillary's staff was justified in deleting work-related emails, or that former President Bill Clinton had an unplanned meeting on an airport tarmac with the Attorney General, shortly before she was to rule on whether Hillary's "extremely careless" handling of classified information should be prosecuted? Or that all they discussed was their grandchildren? 
• By the way, I support Comey's recommendation NOT to prosecute Hillary Clinton, on the basis that her "extremely careless" handling of classified information did not rise to the "gross negligence" level required by the applicable law. Apparently there is no clear precedent for prosecuting anyone on that part of the law.

SO, WHY CAN I NO LONGER  MARK MY BALLOT FOR TRUMP?

Up till about 24 hours ago, I thought I would "hold my nose" and vote against Hillary Clinton by darkening the oval next to Donald Trump's name.

What changed my intention?

• Well, it was Trump's appearance on the O'Reilly Factor,on October 11th. I record and watch Bill O'Reilly almost every evening. Trump trashed Senator John McCain and House Majority Leader Paul Ryan and said he would go it alone! That was what put me over the top!
• I've seen both McCain and Ryan in person when they came to The Villages (in Central Florida) for their 2008 and 2012 campaigns. In 2008, I stood for almost an hour, twenty feet from McCain as he (and Democratic Senator Joe Lieberman) spoke and answered questions. In 2012 I watched Ryan's VP campaign appearance at an outdoor rally, where he introduced his mother, who happened to be a Florida resident. They are politicians, but also honorable men (as is Mitt Romney, whose hand I shook when he came here during the Republican primary).
• So, for the first time in my life, in 2016 at the age of 77, I will not vote for the Republican nominee for President of the US. Of course, I will vote for down-ballot Republicans and hope we can retain control of the Congress. Perhaps I will write-in the name of Paul Ryan or some other Republican I admire. It is a long-shot, but, perhaps Donald Trump will withdraw his name and allow the Republican National Committee to substitute someone else, Who knows?

Ira Glickstein

PS: Earlier this year, during the Republican primary, I wrote some perhaps prophetic words on my Blog:

I am an old Goldwater/Reagan Republican, and a Proud Conservative in the modern sense (i.e., Classical Liberal). ...  

... Trump is a Crony Capitalist DEMOCRAT who is wrecking the Republican Party I know and love, with the inadvertent assistance of the ratings-hungry media, including Fox News, and the feckless response of the dozen other candidates competing in the Republican Presidential Primary, several of whom are excellent in my opinion. 

Gun Rights and Wrongs (Main Menu)

 Some ideas on how new technology,

particularly "UltraSmart" guns that will fire only for authorized individuals, 

plus some common-sense reforms in liability for gun owners, 

might help reduce unnecessary gun violence, 

while being compatible with our Constitutionally guaranteed 

Second Amendment "Right to Bear Arms".

Part 1 - The Problem.  Is it too many restrictive gun LAWS, too many GUNS, or too many gun HOMICIDES?

Part 2 - New Technology. Might "UltraSmart" gun technology, that allows only Authorized Users to fire the gun, help address part of the problem?

Part 3 - Absolute Liability. Within the context of the Constitutional Second Amendment "right to bear arms", could gun owners, over time, voluntarily adopt "UltraSmart" guns, to mitigate the financial liability risks of owning conventional guns?

Part 4 - Aggressive Police Tactics. "Stop, Question (and Optionally Frisk)" has a disproportionate effect on Blacks, but it has been shown to save proportionately more Black than White lives.

CLICK TO Download my PowerPoint file

Advanced "UltraSmart" Gun Concepts 

1) Front-Facing Camera and Laser Spot to ID Target and Aid Shooter Aim, Safety and Reliability.

2) Rear-Facing Camera and Iris Scan to ID Shooter and Assure He or She is Not Drunk nor on Drugs.

3) Sensors in Hand Grip to further Positively ID Shooter. NOTE: Not all sensors need to be on all guns, just enough (perhaps six) to assure Authorized Person will be Reliably Recognized and Unauthorized persons will be Rejected

Ira Glickstein

Gun Rights and Wrongs (Part 1)

1988 Democratic Presidential Candidate Governor Mike Dukakis (Massachusetts),

"commands" the 50 caliber machine gun on an M1 Abrams Tank

GUN RIGHTS AND WRONGS

Some ideas on how new technology, 

particularly "UltraSmart" guns that will fire only for authorized individuals, 

plus some common-sense reforms in liability for gun owners, 

might help reduce unnecessary gun violence, 

while being compatible with our Constitutionally guaranteed 

Second Amendment  "Right to Bear Arms".

Part 1 - The Problem. Is it too many restrictive gun LAWS, too many GUNS, or too many gun HOMICIDES?

Part 2 - New Technology. Might "UltraSmart" gun technology, that allows only Authorized Users to fire the gun, help address part of the problem?

Part 3 - Absolute Liability. Within the context of the Constitutional Second Amendment "right to bear arms", could gun owners, over time, voluntarily adopt "UltraSmart" guns, to mitigate the financial liability risks of owning conventional guns?

Part 4 - Aggressive Police Tactics. "Stop, Question (and Optionally Frisk)" has a disproportionate effect on Blacks, but it has been shown to save proportionately more Black than White lives.

Part 1 - The Problem
Is it too many restrictive gun LAWS, too many GUNS, or too  many gun HOMICIDES?

Is there any way to resolve the diversity of opinion regarding gun control in the US? Will the "pro-gun" NRA ever agree to any new laws intended to reduce gun violence? Will the "anti-gun" forces ever give up their goal to banish private ownership of guns entirely?

Probably not!

However, for what it is worth, here are some ideas that may appeal to those of us in the middle. [This material is based on a talk I gave to an overflow audience of about 120 people at the Philosophy Club of The Villages, FL, on 8 January 2016. As you might imagine, the question, answer, and discussion period following my talk was quite animated!   CLICK TO Download My PowerPoint file

US CONSTITUTION, SECOND AMENDMENT (1791)

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,

 the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

This amendment, passed in 1791, consists of the above compound sentence, in plain English. However, the first phrase seems to be in conflict with the last two,

Is the "right to bear arms" only in the context of a "well-regulated militia"? Is this "militia" to be "regulated" by the government, and, if so, how can government regulation be crafted such that the "right of the people" is not "infringed"?

Well, as recently as 2008, the US Supreme Court, in District of Columbia vs Heller, ruled (5 to 4) that the right to bear arms belongs to individual people. However, like most "rights" it is not unlimited, and firearms may be regulated. For example, convicted felons, mentally defective persons, and others may be prohibited from purchasing and possessing guns. 

Furthermore, some types of firearms are off-limits even to upstanding mentally competent citizens. In other words, no one, not even 1988 Presidential Candidate Governor Mike Dukakis may privately own and operate the 50 caliber machine gun on an M1 Abrams Tank!

LEGAL PRECEDENT IN BRITISH COMMON LAW

Sir William Blackstone, the authority on British Common Law, wrote [1765] 

THE auxiliary right of the subject ... is that of having arms for their defense, suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law. ... and is indeed a public allowance, under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression.

Thus, the tension between the individual right of armed self-defense, and reasonable limits of law, has a very long history.

CURRENT SWISS LAW AND PRACTICE

Male citizens of Switzerland keep fully automatic firearms at home in case of a call-up. There is a very high personal gun ownership rate. Overall, the crime rate is low, but the gun suicide rate is the highest in Europe. The rate of homicide is considerably lower than the European average.


1996 AUSTRALIAN GUN BUYBACK 

After a 1996 massacre, the Australian government implemented a confiscatory gun buyback program that removed some 20% to 30% of personally owned guns from private possession. The 1996 Australian buyback is often hailed as a great success by US gun control advocates. What are the facts? 

The vertical blue line and bar indicates 1996, the year Australia instituted a major gun buyback program.
TOP (Gray background): Australian gun suicide and gun homicide statistics prior to and after the 1996 buyback program.
Middle (Gray background): Australian non-gun suicide and gun suicide statistics for the same period.
BOTTOM (White background): US gun suicide and gun homicide statistics for the same period.  

Australians and Americans speak English and share a British colonial background. Both countries have about the same area (3 vs 3.9 million square miles). However, gun ownership is vastly different (4 million vs nearly 300 million), Australia does not have constitutional protection of the "right to bear arms" nor does it have a strong gun lobby.

With those differences in mind, let us take a closer look at the data. 

[TOP section] Gun control advocates point out that, after the 1996 buyback, gun suicides declined from around 2 to 0.7 per hundred thousand, and that gun homicides declined from about 0.5 to 0.15 per hundred thousand, which is quite impressive. However, please note that, for several years prior to the 1996 buyback, gun suicides had been declining at a pretty rapid rate. So, how much did the buyback program accelerate the decline?

[MIDDLE section] Note that, in the two years after the gun buyback program, non-gun suicides increased from about 11 to 13 per hundred thousand, more than making up for the decline in gun suicides during that period! The message here is that when ready access to guns is denied, people intent upon suicide will use poison or asphyxiation or other non-gun means to accomplish their intent.  

[BOTTOM section] Despite the fact the US did not have a gun buyback program, our gun suicides and gun homicides declined significantly during the same period! 

When you see the Australian gun buyback statistics used by gun control advocates, you will most often notice that gun suicide and gun homicide data are combined, which has the effect of exaggerating the decline. Furthermore, they usually fail to note that gun suicide rates in Australia were on the decline even before the 1996 gun buyback, nor do they point out that US gun suicide and homicide rates declined during the same period, despite the fact we did not have gun buyback!

My conclusion is that, while the Australian experience is interesting, it has little or nothing to do with the gun control situation in the US.

US GUN DEATH STATISTICS 

About 2.5 million people die in the US each year, About 92% from natural causes, and only 8% are not natural, being due to accidents, malpractice, homicide, suicide, or legal intervention.

Gun-related deaths constitute only 1.3 percent of all US deaths. If Gun Suicides are excluded, the total of Gun Homicides, Accidents, Legal, and Other constitutes less than 0.5 % of all US deaths, as indicated in the graphic below. Most gun homicides are gang and/or drug related, i.e., criminals shooting each other. I've read that 80% of all gun homicides are gang and/or drug related but I could not find any clear statistical documentation for this claim. I'd appreciate comments from readers that confirm or dis-confirm this claim. 

US Non-Natural deaths in 2013 (from CDC http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_02.pdf, Table 10.)

SOCIAL AND POLITICAL IMPLICATIONS OF GUN CONTROL 

The following list of pithy bullets represents my attempt to summarize the general positions espoused by some participants in the gun control debate. Please recognize that this is a "shorthand" description of what are often highly nuanced and complex positions. I do not pretend that all Libertarians subscribe exactly to the first set of bullets nor that all Liberals or Conservatives subscribe exactly to the latter two sets. 

Currently, the two leading candidates in the Democratic Presidential Primaries, Secretary Hillary Clinton and Senator Bernie Sanders have diverse opinions on gun laws. Sanders, who hails from a "pro-gun" state, takes positions that are, in many cases, closer to Republican views. Furthermore, among the many candidates in the Republican Presidential Primaries, some may say they lean more to the Libertarian view rather than what I have characterized as the Republican view. Also, not all members of the NRA fully subscribe to the official NRA position.

• NRA (and Libertarians) generally favor almost no control.

– The fewer new gun laws the better. 

Police should enforce current laws. Courts should impose severe sentences on gun-toting criminals.

• Democrats (and Liberals) generally favor strict control.

– The fewer guns the better. 

Easy access to too many guns is to blame when disturbed people or politically or religiously motivated terrorists cause mass shootings. Police brutalize and too often shoot unarmed Blacks.

• Republicans (and Conservatives) generally favor moderate regulation.

– The fewer unjust gun homicides the better. 

Aggressive police tactics in high crime areas are often necessary, even if they have uneven racial impacts. “Stop, Question (Optionally Frisk)” policies actually save proportionately more Black than White lives.

Discussion of the above bullet points:

NRA (and Libertarians) - I am not now and never have been a member of the NRA. However, while living in a rural upstate area of New York State for over three decades I did own and use a 12 gauge shotgun and a .22 rifle (both bolt-action). While I have never considered myself a Libertarian, I do like a lot of what John Stossel, the resident Libertarian at Fox News says.

In general, I would like to see current gun laws enforced, particularly as they relate to stiff jail time for anyone who uses a gun in commission of a crime. On the other hand, while I am skeptical about the ability of "the government" to do anything particularly well, I think there are some common sense changes to US gun laws that could help reduce unnecessary gun violence, as I will outline later in this series of postings.

So, while sympathetic, I cannot subscribe to the idea that the fewer gun laws the better.

Democrats (and Liberals) - A photo of Democratic icon and four-times elected President Franklin Delano Roosevelt hung on the wall of the Brighton Beach bungalow in Brooklyn, NY, where my brother and I lived with our parents and grandparents. My whole family voted Democrat up until my father scandalized us in the neighborhood by voting for Republican Dwight Eisenhower for President.

It was as an engineering student at the uber-leftist City College of New York where I discovered that the honorable appellation "Liberal" had been hijacked by Socialists and Democrats and turned upside-down and inside-out. I still consider myself a "Liberal" in the classical sense, as "the term used to designate the ideology advocating private property, an unhampered market economy, the rule of law, constitutional guarantees of freedom of religion and of the press, and international peace based on free trade." But, I digress.

At first glance, the idea that, since all gun violence involves a gun, it would be better if there were fewer guns, makes sense.

However, that does not follow logically. For example, all medical malpractice involves doctors and medical personnel, so (following parallel reasoning) it would be better if there were fewer doctors and medical personnel. Of course, that is ridiculous! Only a small percentage of doctors and medical personnel are bad, so what we need to reduce medical malpractice is fewer bad ones and more good ones!

The same is true of guns. Only a tiny percentage of guns are involved in unnecessary gun violence. Most of those (perhaps as many as 80%) are possessed by criminals, particularly gang members and drug dealers. So, rather than fewer guns overall, what we need to do is reduce bad gun possession by criminals, gang members and drug dealers. A very small percentage of guns are used by mentally-disturbed people and politically or religiously motivated terrorists, so we need to reduce their access to guns. Finally some guns deaths are accidental, including poorly secured guns inadvertently found by children, and guns used by people who are under the influence of alcohol or drugs. Therefore, it would be good if we could use new technology to allow guns to be fired only by competent adults.

As we all know, technological advances have made high resolution surveillance cameras very inexpensive. I think it is, on balance, good that these cameras are ubiquitous both outside and inside most businesses and many public areas, that police cars have dashboard cameras, that individual policemen have body cameras, and that virtually everyone now carries a cell phone camera.

As a result, damning images have been captured of policemen unnecessarily and brutally shooting unarmed people, including a disproportionate number of Black men. These videos have been broadcast for all to see and prove, even to "pro-police" people like me, that some policemen are trigger happy, and some are also racist.

Despite these videos, I do not think many Democrats/Liberals would seriously consider disarming law enforcement. I join all right-thinking Americans in condemning the policemen involved. I think it would be good if we could use new technology to reduce official misconduct by providing police with what I call "UltraSmart" guns that are designed to be safer and that automatically capture images of each shot, along with time and location data.

So, I cannot subscribe to the idea that the fewer guns the better.

Republicans (and Conservatives) - OK, I must confess here that I am an old Goldwater/Reagan Republican, and a Proud Conservative in the modern sense (i.e., Classical Liberal).

{Trump tangent, skip over if you wish} 

As postings to this Blog (one, two, and three) and my Facebook page demonstrate, I think Donald Trump has tapped into the deep frustration we feel after seven years of President Obama's brand of "change" and the GOP leadership's failure to effectively reign him in. Trump is shouting what we want to hear (yes, even what I want to hear), but his bluster does not stand close examination. His rhetoric is mostly generalities, and in the few instances when he gets specific, he gets his facts wrong. 

Donald Trump is a Crony Capitalist Democrat pretending to be a Republican. As recently as 2004, Trump told CNN's Wolf Blitizer "In many cases, I probably identify more as Democrat" and in 2007, also with Blitzer, he praised Hillary Clinton's ability to negotiate with Iran. Trump gave more of his ample money to Democrats than Republicans between 1989 and 2009 according to NPR. At the first GOP debate this year, he bragged: “I’ll tell you what, with Hillary Clinton, I said, ‘Be at my wedding,’ and she came to my [third] wedding. ... You know why? She had no choice, because I gave.” Until recently, Trump's views on military action in the mid-east, abortion, drug legalization, and health care have been more in line with leftist Democrats than with independents and Republicans. 

To repeat, Trump is a Crony Capitalist DEMOCRAT who is wrecking the Republican Party I know and love, with the inadvertent assistance of the ratings-hungry media, including Fox News, and the feckless response of the dozen other candidates competing in the Republican Presidential Primary, several of whom are excellent in my opinion. 

{end of Trump tangent} 

To gain traction in the primary process, Republican candidates must take anti-gun control positions close to that of the NRA because a substantial portion of Republican Primary voters demand it. I know many of these people personally as hard-working, upstanding, good family men and women who (like me) do not trust the government to do anything except take the money we earn and use it to buy the votes they need by promising and delivering unearned assistance to people who, in many cases, cannot or will not work consistently or hard. Unfortunately, many of these fellow Republicans will reject, out of hand, my ideas for common sense changes in gun regulations and the introduction of "UltraSmart" gun technology. Please note that the NRA does not, out of hand, reject the introduction of "Smart" guns, so long as they are reliable and safe and voluntarily adopted in a free marketplace.*

So, here is where I think most Republicans and Conservatives agree with me. That the problem is not too many guns, but, rather too many unjust gun homicides. The fewer unjust gun homicides the better. Aggressive police tactics in high crime areas are often necessary, even if they have uneven racial impacts. As I will show in Part 4 of this "Gun Rights and Wrongs" topic, "Stop, Question (and Optionally Frisk)" policies actually save proportionately more Black than White lives. 

So, I DO subscribe to the idea that The fewer unjust gun homicides the better

I hope my fellow Republicans and Conservatives will read and give fair consideration to my "UltraSmart" gun technology* concepts in the Part 2 of this "Gun Rights and Wrongs" topic.

* According to the NRA, they have "never opposed smart guns, believing the marketplace should decide their future. Rather, NRA opposes government mandates of expensive, unproven technology, and smart guns are a prime example of that."

Ira Glickstein

Back to MAIN MENU                     CONTINUE TO - Part 2 - New Technology. 

Part 1 - The Problem. Is it too many restrictive gun LAWS, too many GUNS, or too many gun HOMICIDES?

Part 2 - New Technology. Might "UltraSmart" gun technology, that allows only Authorized Users to fire the gun, help address part of the problem?

Part 3 - Absolute Liability. Within the context of the Constitutional Second Amendment "right to bear arms", could gun owners, over time, voluntarily adopt "UltraSmart" guns, to mitigate the financial liability risks of owning conventional guns?

Part 4 - Aggressive Police Tactics. "Stop, Question (and Optionally Frisk)" has a disproportionate effect on Blacks, but it has been shown to save proportionately more Black than White lives.